alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FRA 12-23

December 7, 2023

Contact: FRA Public Affairs

Tel.: (202) 493-6024 

FRAPA@DOT.gov

Federal Railroad Administration Proposes Amendment to Freight Car Safety 

Standards in Support of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is proud to announce its 

proposal to advance a freight rail safety provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)

amending the Freight Car Safety Standards (FCSS). This proposed amendment, on which FRA is 

seeking public comment, aims to further enhance the safety and security of the U.S. freight rail 

industry by introducing crucial restrictions on newly built freight cars placed into service within 

the U.S.

The infrastructure law requires specific measures to ensure the integrity and security of freight 

cars operating within the U.S. These measures limit the use of sensitive technology or 

components that originate from a country of concern (COC) or are sourced from a state-owned 

enterprise (SOE).

The BIL, signed into law November 15, 2021, places great importance on strengthening the 

nation's rail equipment infrastructure and safeguarding it against potential vulnerabilities. BIL

provides safety and security standards aimed at preventing the exploitation of freight cars for 

illicit purposes and the potential compromise of sensitive technologies within the industry.

FRA is committed to ensuring strict compliance with these new safety and security standards. As 

such, FRA has proposed amendments to the FCSS that will facilitate the implementation of these 

requirements by establishing a robust framework for monitoring and enforcing industry 

compliance.

The proposed amendments will serve as a comprehensive regulatory mechanism to support 

BIL’s objectives. The proposed regulations would require manufacturers to document the source 

of materials used in newly built freight cars and establish auditable procurement processes that 

avoid using materials originating from COCs or SOEs. The proposal would also implement 

stringent controls to prevent the use of sensitive technology that could compromise national 

security.

U.S Department of Transportation

Office of Public Affairs

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

www.transportation.gov/briefingroom 

News
FRA Administrator Amit Bose expressed his commitment to progressing the safety initiatives

of BIL, stating, "The safety and security of our nation's freight rail system are paramount. By 

amending the Freight Car Safety Standards in accordance with BIL section 22425, we are taking 

a significant step forward in ensuring that our rail infrastructure remains resilient and safe for the 

transportation of vital goods and commodities."

Further information on the proposed amendments to the Freight Car Safety Standards is 

published in the Federal Register here.

###
(Reap. Dec. 10251)

#### Hybern, Inc., dba The Akron *v.*United States

Entry No. DE-890.

(Decided May 15, 1962)

*Stein & Shostak (Mwrjorie M. Shostalc*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(James F. O’Hara,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

DoNLON, Judge:

On call of this case at the term of court in Los Angeles on February 2, 1962, counsel stipulated, in open court, that the merchandise covered by the entry in this appeal for reappraisement was entered after February 27, 1958, the effective date of the final list published by the Secretary of the Treasury, T.D. 54521, under section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, T.D. 54165. The case was submitted on a further written stipulation" of counsel for the parties, which was filed of record, as follows:

> *654IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases consists of dolls, and that, at the time of its exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the following prices: for the dolls invoiced as Item 50/S, 6 New Francs, net packed, and for the dolls invoiced as 42/S, 3.95 New Francs, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule is not included on the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521 as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

Accepting these two stipulations as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, *supra,*is the proper basis for determination of the values of the dolls, invoiced as item 50/S and item 42/S on the invoice covered by the entry in this appeal for reappraisement, and that such value for the doll, invoiced as item 50/S, is 6 new francs, net packed, and for the doll, invoiced as item 42/S, is 3.95 new francs, net packed.

As to all other merchandise, this appeal for reappraisement is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# What size is your serving? compare the pyramid servings with what you eat in a day

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  What size is your serving? compare the pyramid servings with what you eat in a day 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Food and Nutrition Service 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  2000-2010 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  187 × 56 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  054505407.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
1 OR'r,NAL 1 

2 

3 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

4 AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

5 PUBLIC HEARING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) 

6 8-HOUR OZONE SIP 

7 

8 

9 

10 AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

11 MAY 22, 2007 

12 6:32 P.M. 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 HEARING OFFICER: RANDALL CARROLL, AIR QUALITY PLANNER 

20 

21 

22 

For The Record, Inc. 

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 
2 

1 ATTENDEES 

2 Randall Car 1, Hearing Officer, MDE 

3 James Wil MDE 

4 Brian Hug, MDE 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

For The Record, Inc. 

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 
3 

1 PRO C E E DIN G S 

2 

3 MR. CARROLL: Good evening. If the court reporter 

4 would please turn on the necessary equipment. My name is 

5 Randall Carroll, I'm the hearings officer here at the 

6 Mary~and Department of the Environment, the Baltimore State 

7 Implementation Plan hearing. The time is now 6:32 p.m. on 

8 May 22, 2007. This hearing was scheduled for a 6:00 p.m. 

9 start time. There are currently no persons in the audience 

10 wishing to make any statements on the record so we request 

11 that the court reporter please enter the hearing statement 

12 into the record at this time. The official close of the 

13 comment period on this 8-Hour Ozone SIP closes at the end of 

14 this hearing, today, May 22, 2007. This public hearing is 

15 now closed. 

16 (Hearing was adjourned at 6:33 p.m.) 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

For The Record, Inc. 

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921 -5555 
4 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

2 

3 I, Frank nn, do hereby certi that the 

4 foregoing transcription was reduced to typewr ing via 

5 audiotapes provided by me; that I am neither counsel for nor, 

6 related to, nor employed by any of the ies to the in 

7 which these proceedings were transcribed; that I am not a 

8 relative or employee any attorney or counsel employed by 

9 the parties hereto, nor financial or otherwise interested 

10 in the outcome of the action. 

11 

12 

13 

14 FRANK QUINN, COURT REPORTER 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

For The Record, Inc. 

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555
**EXHIBIT 32**

** **

**SECTION 906CERTIFICATION**

 

 

 

 

**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONOF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connectionwith the amended Annual Report of TPT Global Tech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen J. Thomas,III, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

Dated: April10, 2019

 

/s/Stephen J. Thomas, III 

__________________________________________

Stephen J. Thomas,III,

Chief ExecutiveOfficer & Principal Executive Officer

 

This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.
#### American Express Co., a/c Charvet & Fils *v.*United States

No. 6401.

Entry No. 737113.

Invoice dated London, England, May 1945.

Certified May 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 21, 1945.

(Decided September 30, 1946)

*Eugene B. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): This appeal for reappraisement of various;items of merchandise concerns the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts in the record before me establish export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)) to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for wool materials in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
#### Close & Stewart *v.*United States

No. 7622.

Entry No. 151-S.

— Invoice dated London, England, February 13, 1946.

Certified February 13, 1946.

Entered at Spokane, Wash., March 26, 1946.

*309(Decided October 6, 1948)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(William J. Vitale,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of rayon mufflers imported from England.

At the trial counsel for the Government stated as follows:

Mb. Vitale: If Your Honor please, before hearing the plaintiff, the government would like to make a motion in this case. The government moves to dismiss this appeal to reappraisement on the ground that it is-untimely. And I offer in evidence the Summary of Examination & Appraisement, Customs Eorm 6417, which is attached to the official papers in Protest 132009-K, appearing on today’s docket showing that the merchandise involved was appraised on April 30, 1946. I also offer in evidence the appeal to reappraisement which is among the official papers in this present appeal, that is, 163999-A, which shows that the appeal to reappraisement was filed on April 23, 1947, or approximately one year after the date of appraisement, and not within the 30 days provided for in Section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Therefore, the appeal is untimely and we move to dismiss it.

Judge Cline: Have you anything to say?

Mb. Close: Nothing at all. It is just a proposition over which we had no control. That’s all.

An examination of tlie official papers discloses that no advance over plaintiff’s entered value was made by the appraiser and that the appeal was filed more than 30 days from the date of appraisement.

The appeal is therefore untimely. (Section 501, Tariff Act of 1930.) It is dismissed and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10756 Conference Calendar

RICKY ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MICHAEL A. WILSON; DARWIN D. SANDERS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:96-CV-25

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ricky Zamora, Texas prisoner # 556986, appeals the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights action against Darwin D. Sanders, the warden at the Clements Unit. Although Zamora states as the appellate issue that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint, he has failed to brief any argument on appeal, and his claims are deemedNo. 96-10756 - 2 - abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Zamora has presented no legal points arguable on their merits, the appeal is frivolous, and it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Todd Shipyards Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 3, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. section 1350), that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  November 4, 2004

 

/s/ Scott H. Wiscomb

Scott H. Wiscomb,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                             293
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                       724
<INVENTORY>                                     37,324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,063
<PP&E>                                         167,273
<DEPRECIATION>                                 119,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,980
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,494
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,596
<SALES>                                         77,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,324
<CGS>                                           69,817
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,774)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,774)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,774)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.58)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

R & D FILM 1, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:12-cv-1139

v. Judge Michael H. Watson

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

DOES 414-425,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action on December 11, 2012. On July 12, 2013, the

Court ordered Plaintiff to amend its Complaint within thirty days to substitute in the real names

for its Doe Defendants and to perfect service on those named partes as required under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) or to alternatively show cause why the Court should not dismiss

this action pursuant to Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 7.) To date, Plaintiff has not moved to amend its

Complaint to substitute in the real names for its Doe Defendants. Nor has Plaintiff responded to

the Court’s Show Cause Order. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss this

action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Case: 2:12-cv-01139-MHW-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 08/21/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed,

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation

omitted)).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: August 21,2013 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge 

2

Case: 2:12-cv-01139-MHW-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 08/21/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>